EXECUTIVE ORDER 13274
Task Force Agency Representatives Meeting Minutes
Truman Conference Room
White House Conference Center
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
February 22, 2005
Call to Order: 3:38 pm
Chair: Mary Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
I. Introduction and Opening Remarks
FHWA Administrator Mary Peters called the meeting to order at 3:38 pm. She thanked the Task Force members for attending and made a few opening remarks. She noted that FHWA and FTA are operating under the sixth short-term extension of TEA-21 and said that Congress is closer than ever to passing a reauthorization bill. She urged the Task Force members to ensure that the Administration speaks with one voice regarding the environmental provisions in the reauthorization bill.
II. Status of Priority Projects
The presentation on I-5 North Coast (California) was deferred until a later meeting.
Intercounty Connector (Maryland)
Administrator Peters introduced Maryland Secretary of Transportation Robert Flanagan and Maryland State Highway Administrator Neil Pedersen to provide an update on the Intercounty Connector.
Secretary Flanagan thanked President Bush and the Task Force member agencies for their work on the Intercounty Connector. He said that Maryland is very proud of the environmental review process and the unprecedented coordination that has occurred on this project. He said that the State has been able to use novel approaches to environmental stewardship and that major milestones for the project will occur in the next six months.
Secretary Flanagan noted that there were two corridors studied for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Corridor 1 enjoys almost universal support among local elected officials and members of the public who support the project. He asked the Federal agencies reviewing the project to keep this in mind.
Secretary Flanagan said that the State used a "Principals Plus One" process that utilized a neutral facilitator. The stakeholders met regularly to resolve issues forwarded by staff. There was open and honest dialogue, which allowed them to avoid using more formal means of conflict resolution. They were able to complete the Draft EIS in 18 months, whereas the previous version took five years.
The Secretary laid out some of the upcoming milestones for the project. The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) published the Draft EIS in November 2004, and it appeared in the Federal Register in December 2004. Public hearings were held in January 2005. The public comment period will close on February 25, 2005. MDOT expects to identify the preferred alternative in April, develop the Final EIS in May and June, and reach a Record of Decision in July. Preliminary Design is expected to take place from fall 2005 through summer 2006, with construction currently slated to begin in fall 2006.
Administrator Neil Pedersen indicated that from the beginning, the State included environmental stewardship in the scope of the project. For example, it was included in the purpose and need statement. The state recognized that development in the area has already had a significant impact on the environment, particularly water quality. Mr. Pedersen noted that some of the area's subdivisions were built before existing stormwater management requirements were in place. He said that the State is looking to go beyond what is required for project mitigation to address broader water quality issues. He also mentioned that the State is planning to build recreational trails and turn a historic barn into a visitor center.
Mr. Pedersen said that much of the Corridor 2 alternative is outside of planned development areas designated by the State, and MDOT is examining the secondary and cumulative impacts of the project. He also noted that the issue of air toxics has come up in public hearings and that MDOT is consulting with FHWA on how to deal with this issue.
Mr. Pedersen noted that public interest groups have developed their own alternatives that focus on transit or land use planning. MDOT examined these types of alternatives earlier, but they were rejected prior to the DEIS stage. The State agrees that these proposals should be implemented in addition to the ICC, but the State does not believe they can substitute for a multimodal highway.
Secretary Flanagan said that MDOT has heard positive but informal comments about the project from Federal agencies and asked the Federal agencies to be positive in their formal correspondence regarding the project.
Administrator Peters recognized the staff of FHWA and other Task Force member agencies who are working on the Intercounty Connector project and stressed the potential benefits of the project for the Washington, D.C. area.
Los Angeles International Airport Modernization
Catherine Lang of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) gave an update on the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Master Plan. Ms. Lang said that project is in the final countdown to a Record of Decision. She said that improving communication was important to getting the project moving. FAA set up regular phone calls with the project sponsors and also improved its internal communication.
Ms. Lang stressed the importance of getting people focused on milestones. As an example, she said that endangered species issues had been around since 2000, but once the project was placed on the priority project list, the issue was resolved in a period of months. She also said that FAA worked with EPA to resolve an air quality conformity issue in a timely manner.
Ms. Lang said that the Record of Decision should be issued in the coming month.
III. Report to the President
Robert Mariner of DOT said that the agency has received approval to distribute the Report to the President. He asked Task Force members to suggest people or organizations to receive a copy of the report. He also asked Task Force members to let him know how many copies they each will need. Mr. Mariner said that DOT is working to get the report ready for posting on the DOT website.
IV. Other Environmental Streamlining Efforts
FHWA/FTA Guidance and Legal Memorandum on Linking Transportation Planning and NEPA
Fred Skaer, Director of FHWA's Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, said that the joint FTA/FHWA guidance and legal memorandum about linking transportation planning and NEPA are ready for distribution to field offices.
He thanked Gloria Shepherd in the Planning Office for her efforts and asked her to speak briefly about the two documents. She said that the guidance is voluntary and provides information to State DOTs and MPOs about how to use planning documents in the NEPA process. She thanked the Task Force members for their timely input into the guidance and legal memo.
Mr. Skaer asked the Task Force members to provide these documents to their field offices so that everyone in the field is on the same page.
Ann Miller of EPA noted that the Task Force is just getting ready to approach the public regarding its work so far, and at the same time FHWA and FTA are putting out this guidance. She expressed concern that the guidance may be perceived as not reflecting sufficient input from State DOTs and environmental groups.
Cindy Burbank, Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment, and Realty at FHWA, said that FHWA and FTA had held meetings with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), State DOTs, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to discuss the guidance, so they should not be surprised when they see it. She said that they had also met with the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which represents many environmental groups on transportation issues. Fred Skaer also noted that the Work Group on Integrated Planning is focused on broader integration of planning among agencies, which is beyond what is conveyed in the guidance.
50th Anniversary of the National Highway System
John Fowler, Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), gave an update on the exemption for the Interstate Highway System from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. He said that at its recent winter meeting, the Council approved the exemption, which is based on a historic context study that FHWA did some time ago. He said that there are exemptions to the exclusion for components of the Interstate Highway System that meet certain criteria. ACHP will be working with FHWA, State DOTs, and State Historic Preservation Officers to develop a list of properties that meet those criteria.
Mr. Fowler said that the exemption would be published in the Federal Register in the near future. He added that a nice by-product of the work that went into developing this exemption was that the president of AASHTO attended ACHP's winter meeting and spoke favorably about the partnership that had enabled the development of the exemption.
Administrator Peters said that because of the progress on the administrative exemption, the President would be withdrawing the provisions in his proposed SAFETEA legislation that would achieve the same ends.
Endangered Species Act Guidance
Shari Schaftlein of FHWA announced that FHWA and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are about to release a joint transmittal memo encouraging timely consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), along with a revised FHWA legal opinion regarding the timing and information requirements of the ESA Section 7 Interagency Consultation Process. She said that the legal opinion and joint memo will keep both agencies on track to protect listed species while respecting FHWA's mission of assisting the State DOTS in building and maintaining transportation facilities.
Ms. Schaftlein said the guidance was initially developed for FHWA's Washington Division Office, and that office circulated it to other Division Offices around the country. FHWA headquarters decided to review it again with the assistance of USFWS headquarters staff. They added some more material at the request of both attorneys and program managers. She said that the guidance clarifies the elevation procedures for disputes and that it takes into account that fact that USFWS has regional offices and FHWA does not.
Ms. Schaftlein said that this ESA coordination effort focused on USFWS because most State DOTs are dealing with species listed by that agency. She said that DOT expects this spirit of interagency cooperation will extend to the National Marine Fisheries Service as the agencies continue to coordinate on joint training and integrated planning efforts to ensure ESA compliance for listed marine species.
Paul Hoffman of the Interior Department said that this type of guidance would de-mystify the Section 7 consultation process.
V. Outreach on Work Group Products
Public Workshop
Robert Mariner of DOT said that March 31, 2005, is the proposed date for a workshop to convey findings in the Report to the President and the Work Groups' baseline reports. He referred to the draft list of invitees that was distributed and said that it is based on the invitee list for the November 2002 meeting that was held to kick off the Executive Order 13274 effort.
Mr. Mariner asked Task Force members for feedback on the proposed date, the draft agenda, and the draft invitation list. He indicated that the morning session is currently envisioned as an overview presentation of the various activities undertaken as a result of Executive Order 13274, and the afternoon session is envisioned as a panel session with questions and answers.
The Task Force members agreed to the March 31 date.
Dinah Bear of CEQ suggested that workshop attendees should receive the guidance documents, the Work Groups' baseline reports, and the Report to President before the workshop.
Administrator Peters asked whether the workshop would include briefs on the status of the priority projects. Mr. Mariner said that he did envision very brief presentations on the status of the projects. Administrator Peters suggested that there be posters on priority projects and that the morning session could be structured to allow people to walk around and find out about the projects that most interest them.
Carol Legard of ACHP asked how invitees would be able to provide input. Mr. Skaer said that one option would be to present information at this first meeting and get input at subsequent meetings. Another option is to try to provide information and solicit input at the same meeting.
Task Force members agreed to a poster session in the morning and a question-and-answer session in the afternoon.
Anne Miller of EPA asked whether there would be subsequent meetings around the country. Mr. Mariner indicated that the question of subsequent meetings outside the D.C. area would be decided after the first workshop.
Work Group Baseline Reports
Fred Skaer discussed the plans for rolling out the Work Groups' draft baseline reports. He said that the plan is to put them on the DOT website and to present them at the public workshop to receive feedback. Each Work Group would then decide whether and how to act on the feedback (i.e., to spend time modifying the report or to move ahead with action items stemming from the reports).
Ms. Lang said that she would like to take another look at the report by the Purpose and Need Work Group. She said that purpose and need has been a chronic problem for FAA and that the report might understate the magnitude of the problem that purpose and need statements can pose.
Mr. Hoffman and Administrator Peters agreed that a review by the Task Force as a whole would be beneficial. Mr. Skaer said that there would be need to be a tight deadline for comments so that the reports would be ready for the public workshop on March 31. Pam Stephenson agreed to distribute the Purpose and Need Work Group draft baseline report to the Task Force immediately. The Task Force agreed that comments on the Purpose and Need draft report should be submitted by March 4, 2005, so that the comments can be incorporated and the report posted on the DOT website by March 15, 2005.
Ms. Lang asked what would happen if the Purpose and Need Work Group is unable to reconcile the comments submitted by different Task Force members. Pam Stephenson of FHWA, chair of the Purpose and Need Work Group, indicated that the Work Group felt comfortable with the current version of the baseline report, and the Work Group involved staff from FAA and other agencies. She indicated that if there were sticking points on the report based on the comments from Task Force members, they would meet to work them out or describe the difference of opinion in the baseline report.
Administrator Peters said that she could convene a special Task Force meeting to address any outstanding issues that arise after Task Force members review the draft Purpose and Need baseline report, if these cannot be resolved by the Work Group.
VI. Wrap-up
Task Force members were reminded to provide feedback to Robert Mariner regarding the agenda for the public workshop and the list of invitees.
Administrator Peters adjourned the meeting at 5:04 pm.
| 
